thenexttodie wrote:Slavery was an acceptable method of man sustaining his life in a time where day to day where mere day to day survival was not guaranteed. In the earliest times of slavery, wealth would mostly have been held by tribal leaders and rulers of small kingdoms. There would have been little opportunity for independent, economic ventures. Slaves were subject to beatings as a punishment. And so were non-slaves of course.

Later, when modern civilization arose in force, Jesus simply told slaves to serve their masters well.

Gnug215 wrote:So what you're saying is... that life back then was so shitty (which was according to God's pla due to all wealth being concentrated among a few people, so the only way others could sustain themselves was by being slaves?

God's plan for us was to live in a garden he created for us where we would probably spend most of the day having sex and playing with wild animals .

But instead: "Soo... this situation kinda sucks. The only way out is for you to let yourself be owned by someone else. Oh and btw... Don't revolt or fight for equality and fairness, btw? Those rich guys, they should be left alone and respected for their accumulation of wealth at the cost of everyone else. So be sure to obey them."

You're defending bad decision after bad decision that the Bible makes, in order to justify your faith in some entity whose existence has never been shown to be real.

You've actually gotten to the point where you're defending slavery!!

When we disobey God, it has an effect. I'm not sure what you mean by "bad decision that the Bible makes". The Bible is mostly a record of the evil man did, mostly of the evil his own chosen people did.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

The allpowerfull, allknowing, allbenevolent Alpha and Omega failed? Of course he didn't. His plan all along was to make mankind as his personal toys to satisfy his sadistic urges. That is the only logical conlusion one can make based on the Bible.

Or, since the omniscient creator saw that Adam and Eve would fail - by design!? - along with all their descendants to Noah, hence the need to start afresh with the flood, why not cut all that out and just start with Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives?

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

Or, since the omniscient creator saw that Adam and Eve would fail - by design!? - along with all their descendants to Noah, hence the need to start afresh with the flood, why not cut all that out and just start with Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives?

Kindest regards,

James

Some more "or" here...

Why start at all?

If starting all this meant that ANY person/soul would endure eternal infinite torture and torment, that to me seems too heavy a price for ANYthing.

I cannot for one second logically accept that ANY god would be ok with eternal torment. Least of all one who's supposedly all-loving.

(Although, if one were to logically argue that God wouldn't necessarily have to be good or loving, then the creation of heaven would be a counter argument to that, seeing as heaven is supposedly a show of God's love, or God's "reward".)

Gnug215 wrote:(Although, if one were to logically argue that God wouldn't necessarily have to be good or loving, then the creation of heaven would be a counter argument to that, seeing as heaven is supposedly a show of God's love, or God's "reward".)

I fail to see how the creation of Heaven shows that God is good or loving. Or does creation of Hell show that God is evil? One could argue that an evil God would require a Heaven to maximaze suffering as people would know there is a much better option. And of course He would make the rules such that getting to that better option is really really hard.

But as I said, if god is Triple-O then it is all going accoding to The Plan.

Gnug215 wrote:(Although, if one were to logically argue that God wouldn't necessarily have to be good or loving, then the creation of heaven would be a counter argument to that, seeing as heaven is supposedly a show of God's love, or God's "reward".)

I fail to see how the creation of Heaven shows that God is good or loving. Or does creation of Hell show that God is evil? One could argue that an evil God would require a Heaven to maximaze suffering as people would know there is a much better option. And of course He would make the rules such that getting to that better option is really really hard.

Even then, would this heaven be all it's cracked up to be? Imagine having loved ones not make the cut and being tormented forever in hell while you're in heaven knowing they're suffering forever. Heaven would become a cruel version of mental hell where you'd have to constantly suffer with that knowledge that a wife or husband, son or daughter is forever suffering and you can't do anything about it or... just as bad (or even worse?)... you'd have to have all knowledge of that loved one ripped from your memories leaving you a fraction of the being you once were. Perhaps not even the knowledge, just the empathy ripped from you towards those loved ones in hell. Either way, you'd either be in a mental hell or a shadow of the person you once were.

Grumpy Santa wrote:Yet it's also been demonstrated that religious people produce atheists and that atheists (nones) are the fastest growing "religious group" in the U.S.

Which, of course, could seem to imply that evolution prefers atheists.

the reason why atheism is growing is because the religion is currently on fashion, it has nothing to do with natural selection. the vegan population and the ancient alien beliver population is also growing exponentially ..but this is not relevant.

Fact: religious people are more efficient in reproducing than atheists (for whatever reason)

Fact: Natural selection tends to select individuals that reproduce more efficiently over those who cant reproduce efficiently

Fact I personally find this ironic and funny

these are 3 uncontroversial facts, atheist forums are the only place where people pretend to be skeptic even when simple and uncontroversial facts are presented

Grumpy Santa wrote:Yet it's also been demonstrated that religious people produce atheists and that atheists (nones) are the fastest growing "religious group" in the U.S.

Which, of course, could seem to imply that evolution prefers atheists.

the reason why atheism is growing is because the religion is currently on fashion, it has nothing to do with natural selection. the vegan population and the ancient alien beliver population is also growing exponentially ..but this is not relevant.

And with that right there you may have hit upon the "mystery" once and for all, realizing that in all likelihood there is no connection between natural selection and religion. In other words, religion is fluid, not tied to any individual, and evolution doesn't care what you believe (or don't).

Fact 1: religious people are more efficient in reproducing than atheists (for whatever reason)

Fact 2: Natural selection tends to select individuals that reproduce more efficiently over those who cant reproduce efficiently

Fact 3 I personally find this ironic and funny

these are 3 uncontroversial facts, atheist forums are the only place where people pretend to be skeptic even when simple and uncontroversial facts are presented

1 Religious people may appear to be more prolific at breeding on average, but that doesn't mean they're more efficient. Less children means more resources per child which can lead to a greater chance at being successful. You can say less kids are more efficient. Plus you need to remember the fact that a percentage of those religious spawn are actually atheists in waiting, you're describing a scenario where religious only spawn religious and atheists only spawn atheists, but that's clearly not true. It's not "A" vs "B" when the sets of "A" and "B" overlap.

2 We humans have overridden natural selection of our species with our technologies to the point where it's not really much of a factor any more. Natural selection favors those more likely to have reproductive success in their environment, but we change our environment and take it with us.